I am a few days late.
I have to agree with Paul Krugman: these debates are absolutely useless. They are meant for outreach; i.e. “spreading the word.”
Evidence? Those who already broadly agreed with Krugman’s general economic point of view thought the debate ended with a solid Krugman “domination.” If you already agreed with Ron Paul, however, he was the clear winner. I, of course, agree much more with Ron Paul. But, who you agree with is not a proper means of judging the outcome of a debate (i.e. there are objectively good arguments, even if they are wrong).
Though, if we judge the winner on the basis of who best shut the other person out, I think the obvious choice is Ron Paul. Few people have mastered the art of yelling over your opponent and hammering the same basic slogan (Glenn Beck, Peter Schiff?).
Related Posts
- Choice in Currency
(Note: I can't get Twitter embed to work, so a link will have to do.)
Translation: Banks should go bankrupt and people should choose the currency they want their wages or rents to be paid in... - Stretching the Truth
As usual, I'm late in watching the presidential debates. On the topic, I followed a link on a recent Paul Krugman post to a piece by Sarah Kliff for the Washington Post. Kliff argues that Mitt Romn... - Ron Paul the Libertarian or Ron Paul the Racist?
Brad DeLong has spent a lot of energy blogging about Ron Paul. I understand why: Paul's beliefs are nearly diametrically opposed to those of DeLong. Their means of establishing a greater degree o... - Ron Paul the Racist
(The short after-Christmas update (an addendum to this post):
I think that, by this time, we should be operating under the belief that Ron Paul is a racist (to whatever degree — a homophobe, may... - The Elephants’ Nader
It was argued that Ralph Nader in 2000, who at the time was running for president as the Green Party nominee, acted as a spoiler, drawing votes away from Al Gore's Democratic campaign. I do not kn...
